Morning journal and courier., 1887-08-15
MUNICATEONS.
The AImshouse Matter.

The A1mShOuSe aLtefs To the Editor ofthe JoURNALAND COURIER:
 Your correspondent 'fM, in describing the matter of the contracts for the new aims house, says: " Messrs. Tracy Brothers frs bill was for the first three parts complete, viz. mason work, carpenter work and paint ing. The amount was $162, 800, which was lower than any three combined of the lowest bidders for these separate trades. If Messrs. Tracy Bros. had rested their bidding with this they might have rightfully claim, the contract" Your correspondent then pro- ceeds to argue that, because at the same time Tracy Bros. made another separate and independent bid for the carpenter work and painting only, which bid was not the lowest for those parts of the work, in some strange way the town has lost the right to accept the first bid, and Tracy Bros. cannot rightfully claim that it should be accepted.
 Now this reasoning is absurd. The second proposal of Tracy Bros. had inherent wickedness in it. Of itself it could not affect the first proposal. The proposals are stated to be independent of each other. The town may rightfully take the first proposal, and in Tracy Bros. from rightfully claiming the con- tract under their first bid.
 Indeed, your correspondent, in the judg- ment of those familiar with the points in the controversy, gives up the case when he vir- tually says that under the bid for the mason work, ,carpentering work and painting at $162, 500 Tracy Bros. 'fmight have rightfully claimed the contract" as the lowest bidders.
 How do they cease to be the lowest bidders for the mason work, carpentering and paint ing? Because separate bill for the car penter work and painting they were not the lowest?
 It is conceded by ''M" and all others that they were the lowest bidders for the mason work, carpenter work and painting. When have they ever ceased to be so?
 Another school boy argument is that the town ought to split up the bid of Tracy Bros that it ought to say to them, 'True, you are the lowest bidders for the mason work, carpenter work and painting by s2, TOO; but we say, by reference to your other wicked hedging bid for the carpenter work and painting alone that your bid for the three parts is only s99, 500 more than your bid for the two parts. Now we say to you that we propose to construe your bid for the three parts together a bid for only one of them, and therefore we propose to ept your bid to do the mason work, carpenter work and painting together at $162, 800 by contracting with you to do the mason work at s99, ,5O0."
 If this is not nonsense we do not know what nonsense is.
 If this is the highest expression of busi- ness reasoning of this great town, so much the worse for the town.
 List it. Tracy's offer under which they "might right6ully claim the contract" is ope1 for the town to accept.
 If the town accepts it it must necessarily accept it as it was made. Is it so that 8 business supposes that the town can accept the offer and not be bound by its terms? Suppose the town accepts the offel and tenders to Tracy, in purs uance of the acceptance contract for the mason work only, and Tracy refuses to execute such { contract, could he be made to do so? Ger tainly not. What then? Should the towr necessarily throw away the g, TOO! It mus do that if it does not accept Tracy's offer.
 The town cannot save those s2, TOO in any other way than by accepting the offer oi Messrs. Tracy Brothers to do the mason work, carpenter work and painting at S162,' 5O0
 This is simple fact-at the root of the whole business-whieh everybody must con cede.
 The only question is, "Why should ths town lose the S2,700?"